You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Hi there, I'm the Match.jl principle author and maintainer. I haven't had time recently to do much maintenance there, and while it still (mostly) works with modern Julia, I'm wondering if you would be interested in taking over that package and replacing the implementation with the implementation here? I suspect that more people still end up using Match.jl out of inertia, or simply because the name is easier to find.
There are, of course, the differences that you note at the bottom of your page--it would be good to go through this change carefully.
Anyway, if you're interested, let me know. If not, no worries. Cheers!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
kmsquire
changed the title
Replace Match.jl with the implementation in Rematch.jl?
Replace Match.jl with the implementation in Rematch.jl (and transfer repo)
Oct 21, 2019
Hi @kmsquire, sorry for the delay. Yeah, this does sound like a worthwhile idea. I wasn't around when the fork was made, but I think ultimately the goal was to merge these back in. I think we could probably also take over maintenance of Match.jl, as you suggest.
Unfortunately it's a bit of a busy time here, we don't have a lot of cycles for this right now (hence our delay in even responding). Would you be interested in merging the fork back-in to Match.jl and then we could look at transferring it?
Also, is there a way to like "merge" the two repos together so that github will start automatically transferring people with code pointing at either repo over to the merged result? Or will one of the repos need to put up a "Deprecated" notice?
Hi there, I'm the
Match.jl
principle author and maintainer. I haven't had time recently to do much maintenance there, and while it still (mostly) works with modern Julia, I'm wondering if you would be interested in taking over that package and replacing the implementation with the implementation here? I suspect that more people still end up usingMatch.jl
out of inertia, or simply because the name is easier to find.There are, of course, the differences that you note at the bottom of your page--it would be good to go through this change carefully.
Anyway, if you're interested, let me know. If not, no worries. Cheers!
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: